click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
directer of the cia and ambassador rice -- >> bottom line, more disturbedded now than before. lou: in a statement following that meeting with the republican senators and acting cia director michael morale, ambassador rice said this, "we explained the talking appointments provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage in this process." now even greater confusion on the issue of changed rice's talking points. the most recent explanation and revision comes from cia sitting director who told senators the fbi removed references of al-qaeda from the talking points, but at four o'clock eastern time today, cia officials said morale misspoke and that, in fact, the cia deleted references, not the fbi. stay tuned, as they say. joining us now, former u.s. ambassador not united nations, john bolten, andrew mccarthy, former federal prosecutor who convicted the blind s
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
cia director has some serious problems as well. president obama pulls out all the stops to keep middle class taxes low, but will congress go along with higher taxes for the rich? plus, a long secret u.s. plan, get this, to explode an atomic bomb on the moon. what were they thinking? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> today we may be at the tipping point for one of the most important decisions president obama needs to make as he begins his second term. on capitol hill republicans including moderate republicans are sending the president a clear warning, don't nominate susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. rice is the current u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she spent a second day meeting with senators trying to explain some of her inaccurate comments she made after the september 11th terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. cnn's senior congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us now from capitol hill with the very latest. what happened today, dana? >> reporter: wolf, it was one thing for susan rice to be criticize
the story, ambassador rice has been under really intense scrutiny for publicly repeating cia talking points that the attack that killed four americans in benghazi, back on september 11th, have been connected to protests against an anti-muslim video. diplomatic e-mails showed within a matter of hour of that attack the assault was linked to terrorists. i with aant to bring in colin l. welcome. we saw senator collins speak on the hill, she was one of several, senator coburn met with her today as well. she actually went back to the bombing in africa and the then assistant secretary of state for african affairs, you know, prior job. take a listen. >> i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa, at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. >> senator talking about the attacks on both tanzania and kenya, killed 224 people, injured another 4500. and, senator went on to say both cases ambassador begged for additional security. fair criticism? >> that she did beg for additional securi
the united states was rising and security was -- >> and the answer could be we had cia agents in that area -- >> absolutely. >> -- that needed to be protected. ambassador susan rice met with her strongest critics on capitol hill today to answer questions about benghazi, and the verdict was decidedly negative from her adversaries. senator john mccain, lindsey graham and senator ayotte left the meeting, here's the word, troubled. let's watch. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate. >> i'm more disturbed now than i was before. if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations, and you can say i don't want to give bad information. >> i'm more troubled today because it's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> well, then we go back to michael here. what i'm hearing today is ambassador rice when she went on "
the unclassified version of the report she was given by the cia? then that would have been criticized. >> you're unfit because you're imparting secrets. >> exactly. >> rice was able to win over someone, joe lieberman. take a listen. >> i would not feel that her appearances and anything she said on those sunday morning talk shows september 16th would disqualify her for appointment to any other office. >> leishman in the context, he's retiring, he's not going to be around to vote on this. but is he signaling for other democrats basically that she has a clear path if her name does come up for nomination? >> i think that's right. joe lieberman is conservative, a hawk, respected by some senators on foreign policy issues. there may be three republican senators who don't like her, another 97 who have votes, the house members who have been campaigning against her don't have votes. something chip said, it would be weird or odd for this process to be playing out if she is not going to be nominated as secretary of state. chip, it shows i think a real political premise on your part, and i think unfortuna
debate. so why aren't they saying, we need more information about the cia? we need to know where was the intelligence failure on the part of cia. that seems to me a very reasonable question as opposed to holding responsible she who went on and repeated what those talking points were saying. >> erin, let me bring you in on this. you heard michael, a laundry list of things they could be asking regarding the investigation but you have susan collins and john mccain willing to endorse john kerry. that may be their sincere and honest opinion but why not answer i'm focused on benghazi and the investigation and not potential nominees for secretary of state, both eager to say they would support john kerry. why? >> well, look. republicans are still looking to punish the administration over benghazi. we know that. republicans think that president obama got a pass on benghazi during the election so there's some of that but one thing i would point out to you from senator collins' remarks is that she is still looking for answers from susan rice about a time in 1998 when she was in charge of th
. then they put out a statement the essence of it seems to be that acting c.i.a. director michael morrell said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all o
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)